MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010079422 · doi:10.1139/t07-076

Finite element analysis of highway construction in peat bog

2008· article· en· W2010079422 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yong Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeatGeotechnical engineeringCreepGeologyLateral earth pressureFinite element methodPileCompactionBogEngineeringStructural engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parts of a U.S. Route 44 relocation project span across cranberry bog areas with deep peat deposits. The peat in the proposed roadway side was completely excavated and backfilled with granular soils, and using sheet pile walls as retaining structures. As peat exhibits low strength, high compressibility, and significant creep behavior, the long-term performance of the sheet pile walls was a great concern. To monitor the development of sheet pile deflections and total lateral earth pressures in peat, selected sheet piles located in peat deposits were instrumented with pressure cells and inclinometer casings. Furthermore, to understand the soil–structure interaction mechanism during roadway construction, the finite element (FE) code PLAXIS was employed to continuously model roadway construction in peat deposits. Peat was simulated by a soft soil creep (SSC) model, which can account for creep effects. One of the challenges in this simulation was how to model deep dynamic compaction (DDC), since the enormous momentum induced by DDC would cause local failure of the soil body and consequently result in termination of the program. This problem was satisfactorily solved by using a dynamic approach presented in this paper, and the FE-calculated results were compared with the field measurements. The comparison indicated that FE modeling yields predictions in a good agreement with field measurements and also could provide some reasonable explanations for the field observations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207